1526 
L12 
opy 1 



Thi^ piMioation is fiUa 
nm b& rniUUateti. Please 



LABOR 



—ON— 




BEHALF OF THE AUTONOMY 



-OF— 



CENTRAL AMERICA. 



NOVEMBER, 1913 



American Printing Company, Ltd., 535-7 Poydras Street, New Orleans, La. 



LABOR 



—ON— 



BEHALF OF THE AUTONOMY 



—OF- 



CENTRAL AMERICA. 



NOVEMBER, 1913 



FILE COPY 

COLUMBUS MEIVIORiAL LIBRARY 

PAN AMERICAN UNION, 

iuN 1 1914 

WASHINGTON. D. C 
U. S. A. 



•By 'jLTeurister 

JUt 14 1917 



PROLOGUE. 

As citizens of Nicaragua, we believe it convenient to 
give the greatest possible publicity to the writing of Dr. 
Policarpo Bonilla, Ex-President of the Republic of Hon- 
duras, which we consider of great interest to Latin-Ameri- 
ca, especially Central America, and more particularly as 
applies to Mexico and Nicaragua. 

At this time, questions are being discussed in the White 
House at Washington, which involve the future of our 
race on this continent, and on which solution depends 
perhaps, the free existence of our nationalities, as well 
as maintaining the good feeling which the people of Latin- 
America have always had for this country, or the birth 
of lack of confidence, or hatred, which will not be easy 
to extinguish for many generations to come. 

For many years Dr. Bonilla has been an active promoter 
of the necessity of maintaining harmony and sentiments 
of fraternal friendship with the Anglo-Saxon races and 
the Indian-Spanish, never ceasing to defend with his talent 
and energy, well recognized, the legitimate rights of the 
weak people. His writings have given light on the subject 
to the Statesmen of this great nation, in order to avoid 
that by one or more errors a path of injustice should be 
followed. 

The writings which we are now publishing in this form 
are actually happening. If all our countrymen would 
imitate the noble example of Dr. Bonilla, and would lend 
their intelligence, money and work to such a just cause, 
we are sure that the most complete success would crown 
their efforts. 

We insert the protest of some of those herewith signing, 
and the Act which was subscribed to in Managua, Nicara- 
gua, by the members of the "Club Liberal de Estudiantes" 
in order to corroborate before the Senate and the people 
of the United States, that which we have sustained so 
often, that if the free vote of the people of Nicaragua 
was consulted, in regard to the Treaty of the Canal and 
other concessions, which the so-called Government of Mr. 
Adolfo Diaz has granted to the United States, they would 
all refuse similar pacts, as attempts on the sovereignty 
and independence of our poor country, which has fallen 
into the hands of a group of beings stripped of the most 
elemental notion of patriotism, and who only dream of 
remaining in power, even though by such an act they 



— 4 — 

would have to relinquish the present and the future of 
our sons. 

In this large country, where the sentiment of the people 
vibrates with all spontaneity and greatness, the conduct 
of the men who form the actual government of Nicaragua 
may be appreciated, and who, for personal ambitions, sell 
and deliver, without listening to the public voice, the same 
soil which we inherited free from our glorious ancestors. 

C. Martinez, L., 

ROSENDO ARGUELLO, 

Salvador Lejarza, 
Alfonso Guerrero, 
Gustavo Gurdian, 
Jose M. Ampie, B. 
New Orleans, November 30, 1913. 



THE NICARAGUAN CANAL. 

"I hope I will not live to see the day when the interests of 
my country ivill he placed before its honor." 

These are the words of Senator Hoar to President Roose- 
velt when the latter requested his assistance in carrying out 
his policy for the acquisition of the Panama Canal conces- 
sion. 

A canal across Nicaragua is a route of communication 
beween the two oceans. It would rival that of Panama, 
and, in the opinion of many scientists, would be greatly 
superior to the latter. The Nicaragua route has been the 
subject of a contract, or convention, made during the latter 
part of the Taft administration, as a consequence of the 
dollar policy of Secretary Knox. 

The mere reading of the contract demonstrates the fact 
that the United States has no intention of constructing the 
canal, but simply wishes to prevent any other nation doing 
so. We do not believe that the motive was to assure the 
financial success of the Panama enterprise, although it 
has cost the United States hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Such a supposition cannot be entertained by a country so 
rich, notwithstanding when the contract was entered into 
the government circle was far from professing the senti- 
ment of Senator Hoar. 

The motive that inspired the negotiation was the secur- 
ity of the United States on this continent and the better 
protection of its coasts, after the completion of the great 
channel of communication at Panama. We think, how- 



^5 — 

ever ,that the faults of this contract, which will be com- 
mented upon further on, might be corrected, because I am 
confident that to-day, no matter how great or how legiti- 
mate the interests of this country may appear, they will 
not be considered superior to the national honor. 
Let us examine the most salient points : 
(a) A concession granted the United States by Nicar- 
agua, giving the exclusive and perpetual right to construct 
a canal over the San Juan River and Lake Nicaragua, or 
over any other route across its territory. 

A glance at the map of Central America is sufficient 
to demonstrate the first substantial vice of this arrange- 
ment, which, in effect, nullifies it. Nicaragua has no right 
to make such a contract, because the proposed route of the 
canal belongs in great part also to Costa Rica. This right 
is recognized by the United States in public documents. 
In view of this fact Costa Rica has already presented its 
protest to the two contracting parties. 

Even omitting this capital defect, this stipulation carries 
with it grave objections. Even if it was valid, it cannot 
obtain without substantial modifications. Neither the 
United States nor Nicaragua possess the right to condemn 
in perpetuity an important route of communication that 
nature has furnished to the commerce of the world. For 
the benefit of civilization, for the sake of humanity, m the 
name of worldly conveniences it was thought necessary to 
proceed to the opening of the Panama Canal, even against 
the protest of Colombia, the proprietor of the route. The 
day that a coalition of nations deems it necessary to con- 
struct the Nicaragua Canal, because one alone could not 
dare to undertake it, they would advance the same reasons 
that obtained in the Panama case, if they deemed them- 
selves sufficiently powerful to coerce the United States, 
the proprietors of the concession. This is, therefore, im- 
possible for the object in view, and would cause alarm in 
the nations of both continents. Yet should they consider 
it necesary to persist in the plan, it would be wise for 
the United States to limit its option to a fixed period, for 
example, fifty years — about two generations. During this 
lapse of time, considering its rapid increase in population 
and riches and power, it need not fear even a coalition of 
the nations, which have arived at the summit of their po- 
tency and the maximum of their development, or are about 
to reach that final stage. They, therefore, would not at- 
tempt to attack the United States on its own continent. 

But we may expect that the policy of the United States 
towards Latin America will be loyal and friendly, towards 



— 6 — 

the country to the north and the republics to the south. 
That they will act in such a manner that in the course of 
time it will have created such close and intimate relations 
between the various American nations, and by the admix- 
ture of the blood of both races and mutual assimilation of 
customs, a war against the United States would become a 
war against the entire American Hemisphere. 

In every case, should the United States regard this option, 
as a guaranty of its legitimate interests, in no manner 
would it be justified in depriving Nicaragua and Costa 
Rica, or rather Central America, which, it is to be hoped, 
will soon reappear in the sisterhood of nations, of the right 
to construct a canal on its own soil, with its own resources, 
which probably will then have suificiently developed to 
attempt such an enterprise. Such exclusion would be un- 
just and would be an attack on their sovereignty. 

(b) The lease of the large and small Corn Islands, in the 
Caribbean (Atlantic) and a point in the Gulf of Fonseca, 
to be chosen by the United States, for ninety-nine years, 
for naval stations. 

The contract is renewable at the option of the United 
States, which converts it into perpetuity, because Nicar- 
agua receives no compensation. But this is not the great- 
est fault or defect. The Gulf of Fonseca belongs to three 
countries, for not only Nicaragua, but El Salvador and 
Honduras possess sovereign rights therein. This gulf 
might be regarded as an inland sea, shut up within the lim- 
its of three countries. The United States cannot make use 
of this concession of Nicaragua without violating the rules 
of international law. By the mere act of granting the 
concession without reference to the other two countries, 
their sovereignty has been offended, an offense that the new 
American administration,which has declared its intention 
of treating the small republics with justice and friendship, 
cannot ratify. We do not know if the other republics have 
protested ; if not, they probably soon will. 

(c) Concession by Nicaragua to the United States, in 
perpetuity, of the right to navigation, not only of the canal, 
but of all its seas, together with coastwise navigation upon 
equal terms with the Nicaraguans. 

The rules of common law, but particularly of interna- 
tional law, by which the contracting parties must have re- 
ciprocal rights, as sufficient compensation between each 
other, have been violated in this stipulation. When, as in 
this case, the rights are applicable to both parties, the 
contract that concedes all to one party alone, is called 
"leonine." If in this contract it were stipulated that the 



Nicaraguans should enjoy equal privileges in the seas and 
along the coasts of the United States the injustice and the 
offense against a little and weak country, which is de- 
prived of representatives with the power to demand a 
hearing — as has occurred in this case — and is not as a 
friendly country, but as a tributary, would disappear. 

(d) In recompense of all that Nicaragua has conceded 
$3,000,000 are promised (but not to be actually paid), 
which shall be employed as directed by the Department of 
State of the United States— (pure dollar diplomacy). 

If it were possible to fix the price of the sovereignty of 
a country no one could conceive that Nicaragua, or rather 
Central America, is worth but three millions. But in case 
the contract is modified in such a manner as to preserve 
national sovereignty undoubtedly the concessions granted 
have a much greater value. 

The only temporal option upon the route of the canal 
should not be estimated at less than that paid Panama for 
its concession, inasmuch as it tends to secure the fruit of 
the latter. But we can see a compensation much more ra- 
tional and just than a sum of money, even if paid in cash, 
viz., the rehabilitation of the River San Juan, and the 
rendering it navigable for seagoing vessels up to and in- 
cluding Lake Nicaragua. This idea has always been the 
golden dream of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Upon the ter- 
mination of the construction work of the Panama Canal 
the United States will have no further use for the great- 
er portion of the machinery employed on that enterprise. 
No country could therefore carry out a dredging project 
at as little cost as this country. It could well take up the 
improvement of the San Juan River, and all other neces- 
sary operations that will afford access to the great lake, 
which is naturally an excellent, a safe and an immense port, 
that could contain all the vessels that traverse the seas, 
if it were possible to collect them together at one time. 
It is impossible to estimate the rapidity of the development 
and the advantages that would accrue to those countries 
so rich in natural resources. If the convention would enter 
into such a stipulation, to be completed v/ithin a given time, 
it would be a notable compensation for the sacrifices made 
by the interested countries, with the exception of their sov- 
ereignty, for which nothing can compensate, 

For the other concessions, once the present contract is 
annulled, when examined by the countries, which have 
the right to make them, we do not believe it would be dif- 
ficult to find a just compensation. 

We have purposely deferred to the last to call attention to 



— 8 — 

the principal fault in the convention entered into. We pro- 
pose to demonstrate the truth of this objection. 

Nicarag-ua had not, nor yet has, a legitimate and inde- 
pendent government to represent it, and much less in its 
relations with the government of the United States. 

It is notorious that the actual president of Nicaragua 
was maintained in his post against a popular revolution, 
by the unjustifiable intervention of the American marine,, 
and even at the present moment (nothing to the contrary 
has been published), a detachment of these marines occu- 
pies the presidential palace (the White House) of the cap- 
ital of that republic, acting as a guard of honor to the 
president, or rather as a guard against his own people. It 
is well known that the election of that president and the 
assembly that ratified the convention was held under the 
rule of martial law, under the pressure of foreig,n bayonets, 
after an official declaration of the American minister, 
which signified the exclusion of all other candidates who 
were not in favor of the dollar diplomacy. It is plain, by 
consequence, that the convention celebrated was effected 
by the government that occupied the country with its forces. 
It is therefore a species of indemnity, forced upon the con- 
quered by the conqueror, notwithstanding there had been 
no declaration of war. It is impossible, therefore, to view 
the case with the principle that is applied to consummated 
acts without remedy, because it is a case that depends upon 
the reparation that the honor and justice of the American 
people should accord to the overpowered Nicaraguans. 
This gives the right to believe that according to the de- 
clarations made by the new president and the new secre- 
tary of state of the United States, they will ignore the pol- 
icy of which Nicaragua was the victim. This policy has 
been condemned by the United States Senate. One of these 
secretaries made war upon Nicaragua, another should 
make amends for the wrongs inflicted, and prevent the 
consummation of those impending. 

We believe that when this convention is discussed in the 
Senate, if it is not rejected in its integrity, Nicaragua 
would then have in the bosom of that great body firm ad- 
herents, who will condemn what the government of Nicar- 
agua, with the desire to preserve its powers, has consented 
to, if not solicited, on account of its being in conflict with 
the honor of both nations. 

We believe that after this contract is annulled, if the gov- 
ernment of the United States should persist in negotiating, 
it will treat with the three interested countries and with 
Nicaragua, only when it possesses an independent govern- 



— 9 — 

ment, the fruit of a free election, not restricted, but rather 
stimulated by representatives and agents of both govern- 
ments. 

The matter we have just treated is so complicated that 
we do not pretend to have fully explained it. It seems, 
rather, as an insinuation of a possible solution. 

We have resolved and have declared in a most solemn 
manner, that we will not in any way or manner intervene 
in Central American politics. Our comments respect- 
ing the government of Nicaragua must not be regarded as 
an expression of personal passion, or of party feeling. We 
have been so often deceived by public men and militant par- 
ties that we have no especial preference and our actions 
are subject only to national interest. 

We have preferred to date this writing on the anniver- 
sary of the independence of the United States, it being an 
appeal in demand of justice to the American people, and to 
place Central America under the aegis of the father of this 
great nation, whose name, on this date, more than any 
other, is venerated, and whose precepts and_advice are 
doubtless heard by the present American statesmen when 
they treat of the solution of the Central American prob- 
lem. POLICARPO BONILLA, 

Ex-President of the Republic of Honduras. 

New Orleans, July 4, 1913. 



PROTEST. 

In The Daily Picayune of Sunday last, the 13th, Dr. 
Policarpo Bonilla, ex-President of Honduras, and a 
prominent public man of Central America, published an 
article, in which he demonstrated almost with evidence, 
the illegality of the treaty which the United States cele- 
brated with Nicaragua, in regard to the Canal Zone and 
other valuable concessions. 

As the Editors of this newspaper combat Dr. Bonilla, 
stating that this gentleman had no right to speak in this 
manner, as he is not a Nicaraguan, we, sons of the Re- 
public of Nicaragua, which is now passing through a dark 
epoch of her history, wish to manifest with all the force 
of our patriotic sentiment, that we approve each and every 
one of the ideas embodied in Dr. Bonilla's article, to whom 
we give a vote of thanks and applause for the very high 
defense which he makes of our rights, which are his, as 
a worthy citizen of Central America, so arbitrarily op- 
posed. At the same time, we take advantage of this oppor-- 



— 10^ 

tunity to say to the worthy people of the United States, 
that that treaty subscribed to by a government condemned 
by public opinion, is absolutely void, and if the free vote 
of the inhabitants of Nicaragua should be consulted, it 
would be refused by all, as an attack upon the sovereignty 
of our country, and as a scandalous violation of universal 
right and justice. 

S. Gamez, R., 

g. gurdian, 

Fidel Savallos Morales, 

Alfonso Guerrero, 

ROSENDO ARGUELLO, 

Salvador Lejarza, 
Jose M. Ampie, B. 
C. Martinez, L., 
F. R. Zambrano, 
Arturo Rodriguez. 
New Orleans, July, 1913. 



policarpo bonilla claims uncle 

SAM HAS created MEXICAN 
PROBLEM. 

Hon. Policarpo Bonilla, formerly president of Honduras 
and recognized as one of the ablest Central American 
statesmen of the present day, is temporarily in the city, 
at No. 1716 St. Charles Avenue. Dr. Bonilla was formerly 
located here, in the practice of law, but recently removed to 
New York, where he will make his home. He expects to 
leave for New York again within a few days. 

When approached yesterday with a request to state the 
opinion of Central America regarding the Mexican im- 
broglio. Dr. Bonilla said, in substance: 

"The American Government, as a result of the fall and 
death of President Madero and the consequent ascension to 
power of the present incumbent. General Victoriano Huer- 
ta, made a declaration which cannot fail to have immense 
influence upon the future development of international 
law. This declaration was, that the government of the 
United States has the right, and even the duty, to refuse 
to recognize the Huerta government on account of its 
vicious origin, while the government of Mexico continues 
unorganized, in accordance with a popular election, legally 
and properly held, 

"Subsequently the American government made another 



— 11 — 

and more definite declaration relative to the Mexican situ- 
ation, to the following effect: That it could not consider 
legal any election which might result to the benefit of 
President Huerta, inasmuch as any such election could not 
be considered a free one. 

"Finally, as a result of the coup d'etat effected by Presi- 
dent Huerta in dissolving the congress and throwing into 
prison upwards of 100 of the congressmen, the American 
Government has announced that whatever result might 
follow an election held during the continuance of the dic- 
tatorship created by General Huerta's action, it would be 
looked on as illegal. 

"Everyone must recognize that these declarations, if 
accepted in the law of nations, will produce important 
effects, as tending to establish new and broad moral prin- 
ciples and also as helping to create a world opinion which 
cannot fail to be of immense benefit in stimulating and 
liberating public opinion within the limits of particular 
nations, especially those of Latin America. In support of 
these successive declarations of principle the United States 
may cite the course of the great European powers with 
regard to Servia. The powers set forth practically the 
same principles, and for a long time insisted upon main- 
taining them with regard to King Peter as a result of the 
manner in which he came to the throne, through the mur- 
der of his predecessor and a military uprising like that 
which brought about the elevation of Huerta to the Mexi- 
can presidency. It should be pointed out, too, that Peter 
was absent from Servia at the time when King Alexander 
and Queen Draga met v/ith their terrible fates, and he 
could, therefore, not be suspected of any part therein. Yet 
the powers felt that they could not recognize his govern- 
ment under the conditions which brought it into existence. 

"The United States may well cite the case of Servia if 
the powers should attempt to question its policy with re- 
gard to Mexico. 

"Further, the United States may support its Mexican 
policy by the provisions of the Central American Peace 
Conference in Washington, which convention received the 
moral sanction of both the United States and Mexico, 
nations which figured at the conference as mediators. In 
this convention it is provided that none of the republics 
of Central America should recognize any government that 
was formed as the result of a coup d'etat or revolution 
until after a popular assembly had been elected by the 
unrestrained vote of the people and the country reorgan- 
ized by that assembly on a constitutional basis. 



— 12 — 

"I feel sure that, if the United States Government should 
hereafter act in conformity with the principles which it 
now proclaims, the Latin Americans everywhere will ac- 
cept gladly the action of the Americans on behalf of peace 
and order; as the savior of the rights of the people and 
the protectors of justice and law. I believe that the United 
States, by declaring itself as it has done in these three 
statements referred to above, has created a situation 
which must have great effect upon the attitude of other 
nations. They, too, must take the same stand. It is im- 
possible for a great nation to favor principles which are 
obviously moral, pure and lofty, without all the other 
great powers being compelled to fall into line. If the 
nations agree to sever their relations with any government 
which falls into the hands of a tyrant, and violates the 
laws of humanity, then such a government will be placed 
at once in a position amongst the nations similar to that 
occupied by an individual criminal in the community whose 
laws he has violated. Tyranny would then become impos- 
sible. The weight of public opinion in the tyrant's own 
country would be sufficient to defeat his evil ambition. 
Revolution would thus become unnecessary. Latin Ameri- 
ca would see an end of all such cruel wars. 

The United States, however, is handicapped in handling 
the Mexican situation by the fact that these correct prin- 
ciples have been tardily enunciated. Had the American 
Government always followed in Latin America the theory 
which it is now applying in the case of Mexico, the success 
of its diplomacy with regard to Huerta would be assured. 
But, unhappily, the Mexicans, both federals and rebels, 
cannot forget the contradictory course followed by the 
United States in Nicaragua. There a government which 
is admitted not to hold office as a result of the freely 
expressed desire of a majority of the population, is kept 
in power only by the help of a force of American marines 
located in the Campo de Marte — the Nicaraguan White 
House — in the city of Managua. The Mexicans cannot but 
realize that the present government of Nicaragua is the 
result of a military revolt against the government of Presi- 
dent Zelaya, that this latter government was recognized 
by the United States as constitutional, and that the rebel- 
lion against it was not merely recognized, but encouraged 
by the United States. When Zelaya was driven from 
power the United States took no steps to see that a free 
election was held, but forced the victorious chiefs of the 
rebellion to agree to the Dawson pact, by which the suc- 
cession in the presidential office was regulated. Taking 



— 13 — 

advantage of the entire dependence of the Nicaraguan 
Government upon the United States, the American State 
Department took steps to compel Nicaragua to accept an 
American loan, and assign its customhouses to represen- 
tatives of a group of American bankers — in whose hands 
they still remain. In consequence of this loan a revolution 
broke out against the government. American marines, 
without the authorization of the American Congress, were 
landed and fought for the government against the revolu- 
tionaries. Without this aid it is unquestionable that the 
government could not have maintained itself. Then, at 
the end of this brief war President Diaz dissolved the 
Nicaraguan Congress, assumed the legislative power him- 
self, and made himself dictator. While vested with the 
dictatorship, he called an election for president and vice 
president, which election took place while the country was 
still under martial law, and he himself was elected to the 
presidency. The United States, nevertheless, recognized 
that election as legal, and took steps to induce the other 
republics of Central America to recognize Diaz — a course 
exactly contrary to that which the American Government 
is following in Mexico now, and which was violative, in 
spirit and letter to the Washington treaty, to which the 
United States, while not a signatory, was nevertheless mor- 
ally a party. 

"Furthermore, the American Department of State has 
lately secured from the Nicaraguan Government a contract 
covering the Nicaraguan Canal route, which is considered 
unfair to Nicaragua by the Nicaraguans and by all the rest 
of Central America. 

"I mention these facts as facts. They are very generally 
admitted here in the United States. 

"All of these incidents took place under the Taft adminis- 
tration, but their consequences are yet being felt, because 
the present administration in Washington has not yet made 
any formal pronouncement as to its Nicaraguan policy. 
This pronouncement no doubt is complicated by the fact 
that the American marines now in Managua must even- 
tually be withdrawn and that if they are withdrawn, except 
when a constitutional government acceptable to the people 
shall have been instituted, there can be no doubt that a 
revolution will immediately break out against the Diaz re- 
gime. If the United States, when it does ultimately define 
its policy, should decide to undo the wrong that has been 
done, restoring the constitutional government in Nicara- 
gua, and causing a free election to be held for president 
and Congress, and thus opening a way to repudiate the 



-^14— 

contracts now in force in favor of the American bankers, 
and relative to the canal — ^the latter agreement having been 
made by the United States with a government which was 
its creature — then the confidence of Central America in 
the good intentions of the United States will be restored. 

"The restoration of this confidence in Central America 
is essential to the successful solution of the Mexican diffi- 
culty. For not only will the result of a proper policy in 
Nicaragua restore the good will of Central America, but 
that of all Latin-America and of Mexico as well, and fore- 
stall any suspicion among the great powers of the motives 
of the United States, whether in Nicaragua or in Mexico. 
A pacific mediation in Latin-American affairs by the United 
States would then be possible, with the approval of the 
very people who were being mediated with. Then the 
United States would not have to anticipate an armed in- 
tervention in Mexico, which would be a true calamity for 
both countries. Such mediation would be acceptable to 
both parties to the present war in Mexico, without any fear 
on the part of either that such intervention would lead 
to a situation in Mexico similar to that which now exists 
in Nicaragua. 

"I have entire confidence that these considerations are 
even now engaging the attention of President Wilson and 
Secretary Bryan, and that they will eventually act in ac- 
cordance with them. I am confirmed in this impression by 
reading President Wilson's speech at Mobile, a few days 
ago. If they do as I anticipate, their's will be the glory 
of adding to international law a new and very noble prin- 
ciple. 

"I do not express any opinion as to the character of 
Huerta or whether he should or should not be recognized, 
I merely present the point of international law which is 
involved. I desire to show why it is necessary for the 
United States to settle the Nicaraguan question before 
there is any attempt to deal with Mexican affairs. The 
Central American problem is a large one now before Ameri- 
can diplomats. On it depends the entire future success 
of American diplomacy in Latin-America. The United 
States has much to do on behalf of the Central American 
republics. I have given much thought to the means that 
should be employed. I believe that there are just and effi- 
cient means which, if employed, would increase good feel- 
ing between this country and the other republics of the 
continent, instead of extinguishing those sentiments, as 
has tended to result from the plan of an economical and 



— 15 — 

political protectorate which has been tried in Nicaragua. 
Into this I cannot enter without going into too much detail 
to justify taking it up just now." 



LETTER. 

Managua, August 29, 1913 
Dr. Policarpo Bonilla, New Orleans, La., 

Dear Sir: I have the honor of transcribing to you the 
Act which literally says: 

"In the City of Managua, at 5 p. m., on the 25th of 
August, 1913, (92 years of this country's independence) 
the undersigned members of the "Club Liberal de Estudi- 
antes" united, called together in order to verify an extraor- 
dinary session, and informed of the energetic and brilliant 
protest, which was published in New Orleans by the Illus- 
trious Central American, Dr. Policarpo Bonilla, against the 
ruinous concessions which the actual Government of this 
Republic has recently made to the United States of North 
America, and which compromise the dignity of Nicaragua 
and the territorial integrity of the Central American coun- 
try, and knowing that a newspaper of the same place ac- 
cuses Dr. Bonilla of not being able to say anything m 
protest, on account of not being a Nicaraguan, we agree : 

(1) To adhere as one to that expressed in the referred- 
to protest, and give to Dr. Bonilla a vote of applause and 
of confidence for the patriotic attitude which has been 
taken, in favor of this unfortunate country, in the critical 
moments in which a Governor, without conscience, wholly 
lacking in patriotic sentiments and who defiles the cradle 
of Maximo Jerez and of Jose Madriz, comprising in an 
unqualified manner the freedom of this country, which 
is even more to be censured, as he wishes to make it appear 
that he is voicing the sentiments of the Nicaraguans in 
such scandalous ignominy. 

(2) To send the referred-to Dr. Bonilla a faithful copy 
of this Act, which will bear testimony to the sentiments of 
gratitude which our hearts hold for him, expressing to 
him our confidence in that, as always, he will know how 
to give to the service of Central America, his valuable 
and well-proven patriotism and his abundant talent. 

(3) The session was' terminated, the present Act, which 
was signed by all those present, being carried : G. Narvaez 
L., President; Horacio Mayorga G., Vice-President; Pedro 
Pablo Alvarez, Ruperto Romero, Ramon Zelaya M., Helio- 
doro Moreira M., Members. Humberto Corea M., Treas- 



— 16 — 

urer; Gustavo Garcia L,, Auditor; Jose D. Arroliga M^ J. 
Espinosa B., Cesar Aranda R., Carlos A. Duran, Pedro 
Dona U., Aurelio Montenegro A., E. iRobleto Guzman, Ino- 
cente Leiva, Jose M. Lesage, Miguel Ibarra, Silviano Mata- 
moros A., Numa P. Zelaya, F. Cuevas Guerrero, Matias 
Zamora, Alfonso Narvaes L., J. M. Zelaya, Paulino Jarquin, 
Humberto Herradora U., Horacio Diaz Gomez, Gustavo Es- 
pinosa Lopez, Armando Saavedra, C. Alberto Lopez, H. 
Guillen Irias, Octavio Ruiz, Active Members ; F. Baltodano 
C, J. Jacinto Perez, P., (Corresponding members in Leon) 
Carlos A. Garcia H., (corresponding member in Granada), 
Fernando Garcia, Eliseo Palma H., (corresponding mem- 
bers in Chinandega), Arturo Cruz, (corresponding member 
in Jinotepe) , Nathan Sequeira, (corresponding member in 
Masaya), Anibal Garcia L., First Secretary; E. Fletes B., 
Second Secretary." 

I am, Mr. Bonilla, your faithful servant, 
(Signed) Anibal Garcia L., 

First Secretary. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



015 816 283 



